PDA

View Full Version : Lancasters over the Pacific?



Snuffy Smith
03-20-2007, 10:49 PM
I swear I saw a Lancaster in US markings! This is embarrasing. We're stuck in Euro metric land and now we are in RAF bombers in US colors? This is silly. I don't think there was a Lancaster deployed outside the UK during the war, they were too valuable, and for maritime patrol? Is this a prank or an Easter egg?

Snuffy Smith
03-20-2007, 10:49 PM
I swear I saw a Lancaster in US markings! This is embarrasing. We're stuck in Euro metric land and now we are in RAF bombers in US colors? This is silly. I don't think there was a Lancaster deployed outside the UK during the war, they were too valuable, and for maritime patrol? Is this a prank or an Easter egg?

RedTerex
03-20-2007, 11:07 PM
edited: as this post could be misenterprated !

Snuffy Smith
03-20-2007, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry RedTerex, you are serious? I don't know what to say. I thought it was a joke or a hoax.

There is a wealth of information on your own forums, at Pacific Fighters, and over at Subsim. Any of us, who've been around for a while, would have been happy to help. There is limitless info on Google. One of the main selling points in the game's promotion is the work and detailed research the development team was reported to have put into it.

TuSC79
03-20-2007, 11:57 PM
LOL... I was looking at it and thinking: "Well, it IS 1941 and I don't know every possible plane from this early in the war, but even so... that does NOT look like an early B-24 to me."

switchman72
03-21-2007, 01:06 AM
Show some screenies please! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

rodan54
03-21-2007, 01:41 AM
Lets try not to be so hasty in our assumptions of why it's in SH4. I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it may be, but I doubt it's in any way due to a lack of WWII knowledge on the part of the developers.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8156/ussearchplanebc0gg3.jpg

joeap
03-21-2007, 02:52 AM
Firstly, the US did NOT use Lancs, second SH3 (stock SH3) had Liberators. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RedTerex
03-21-2007, 04:03 AM
Here is a pic of a 'real' Avro Lancaster Bomber for comparison.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/RedTerex/avro-lancaster.jpg

It makes me muse to what this Bomber is actually doing in the Pacific, painted up in USAF markings.

As far as I am aware the USAF or United States Army Air Corp never at any time had any Lancasters, they had too many of their own B17's of which they 'lent' to the British. The USAF did however use the Mosquito Bomber on occiasions.

MAX_III
03-21-2007, 04:04 AM
Funny you should say that Isaw the same thing but this one flew straight in to the mountain..lol I followed it with camara

TAW_Oilburner
03-21-2007, 04:53 AM
No Lancaster's in pacific and definately none in the US Navy. Notice the star on the fuselage is upside down? And what's with the skin? The panel lines are ridiculous.

Goose_Green
03-21-2007, 05:24 AM
This does not bear well for the rest of the game - I think the game developers should apologise for a terrible lapse in detail and have the aircraft removed from the obvious 1st patch when it is made available. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

joeap
03-21-2007, 05:46 AM
Too bad I will say the model itself (not the skin) looks nice actually.

GoldenEagle8
03-21-2007, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Goose_Green:
This does not bear well for the rest of the game - I think the game developers should apologise for a terrible lapse in detail and have the aircraft removed from the obvious 1st patch when it is made available. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't you go into the AIR folder and just remove it? Assuming the file set up is the same.

Tater-SW-
03-21-2007, 07:50 AM
Man, what a horrid gaff. I doubt they'd have had a P-51 with german markings subbing for something in SH3.

Tracer63
03-21-2007, 08:36 AM
Only info i found so far was this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the war ended in Europe, the Canadian Lancaster squadrons flew back to Canada with more than 150 aircraft to begin training to fight the war in the Pacific. When Japan surrendered, most of these surviving Lancasters were put in storage at inactive airports in western Canada, where many were scrapped </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By June of 1945 it was back in Canada in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia as part of the buildup of 408 and 428 (Canadian) squadrons RAF to be part of Canada's "Tiger Force" for the continuing war against Japan in the Pacific. But the war with Japan ended in July before the squadrons saw any service and FM104 was never officially taken on strength (it was never issued a squadron code). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kaleun1961
03-21-2007, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodan54:
Lets try not to be so hasty in our assumptions of why it's in SH4. I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it may be, but I doubt it's in any way due to a lack of WWII knowledge on the part of the developers.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8156/ussearchplanebc0gg3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lack of WW2 knowledge has been demonstrated previously by SH3's developers: they left out such obvious ASW aircraft as the Hudson and Beaufighter and gave us what instead?: Hurricanes!!! Am I the only one who feels like gouging out his eyes with chopsticks when he sees such an obvious *****?

TheRealPotoroo
03-21-2007, 09:50 AM
Perhaps that's why the Museum lists it only as "American bomber". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

klcarroll
03-21-2007, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lack of WW2 knowledge has been demonstrated previously by SH3's developers: they left out such obvious ASW aircraft as the Hudson and Beaufighter and gave us what instead?: Hurricanes!!! Am I the only one who feels like gouging out his eyes with chopsticks when he sees such an obvious *****? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmmm........., Chopsticks??

That's an interesting choice of tools! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

*

NeoDeo1955
03-21-2007, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodan54:
Lets try not to be so hasty in our assumptions of why it's in SH4. I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it may be, but I doubt it's in any way due to a lack of WWII knowledge on the part of the developers.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8156/ussearchplanebc0gg3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lack of WW2 knowledge has been demonstrated previously by SH3's developers: they left out such obvious ASW aircraft as the Hudson and Beaufighter and gave us what instead?: Hurricanes!!! Am I the only one who feels like gouging out his eyes with chopsticks when he sees such an obvious *****? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am thinking its a modified P-38 customized with a C-130 Nose and cockpit.

Yeah. Yeah. That's it. It's a modified P-38.

Anyways that is my story and I am sticking to it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

klcarroll
03-21-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah. Yeah. That's it. It's a modified P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nooooo! ......It can't be a P-38! They didn't have that kind of top turret! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

*

Kaleun1961
03-21-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lack of WW2 knowledge has been demonstrated previously by SH3's developers: they left out such obvious ASW aircraft as the Hudson and Beaufighter and gave us what instead?: Hurricanes!!! Am I the only one who feels like gouging out his eyes with chopsticks when he sees such an obvious *****? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmmm........., Chopsticks??

That's an interesting choice of tools! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yuk yuk! Guess I'm just trying to get into the Oriental mood of the game. If I get captured, they're not exactly going to give me a knife and fork to eat my meager rations, are they?

Tater-SW-
03-21-2007, 12:44 PM
The japanese solved POW utensil problems by not feeding them. Wait, some did see a utensil: unfortunately, it was a sword.

klcarroll
03-21-2007, 01:06 PM
Hey Tater;

I realize that you intended humor, but due to some recent complaints, we kinda have to shy away from that sort of thing.

Thanks!

*

Tater-SW-
03-21-2007, 02:00 PM
Actually, I was 100% serious, but I'll stay off it in the future.

&lt;S&gt;

tater

Kaleun1961
03-21-2007, 02:18 PM
Yes, we all know what happened during WW2, but the peril here is that we have members from various countries here, some of whom are from former enemy states. It would not contribute to the harmony of the forum to drag up war atrocities and apportion blame. That has already been done elsewhere. This forum is meant for fans of naval simulations; the side issues of the war do not factor into this game and hence have no place here.

switchman72
03-21-2007, 03:31 PM
Well said Kaleun1961, klcarrol. I cant think of anthing else to type, im too busy lmao. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Realjambo
03-21-2007, 04:36 PM
Many 'Moons' ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif this was a 'genuine' headline from a very downmarket newspaper in the UK, a story purtaining that a WW2 Bomber was on the moon. I think, if memory serves, they alleged Hitler had flown it there to escape persecution from his enemies. I've had to heavily (and very roughly!) edit it for decency, as I said, it was a VERY downmarket publication.

My point being, if a WW2 Bomber 'is' on the moon, then anomalies like the Lancaster in the Pacific are credible! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PS: No, in case you were wondering, it isn't an old edition of The Gibraltar Herald, or http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif it's soon to be sister publication 'The Pacific Pearl' !

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/antsmith/editedww2bomberonmoon-1.jpg

ThornNRazor
03-21-2007, 05:06 PM
After gutting the game files a bit, I noticed that a lot of SHIII data is still there. Perhaps the DEVs were in too much of a rush to delete out all the old stuff and this is why you noticed a Lancaster in the Pacific?

If not, then I'm with Realjambo, and there truly are *hidden?* abnormailities in this sim.

Who knows, you might even spot an underwater Bismarck with with a periscope & screendoors piloted by Elvis?! EEEEKK!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Kaleun1961
03-21-2007, 05:45 PM
Wouldn't that be a giggle: Kapitanleutnant von Presley?

bweiss
03-21-2007, 06:37 PM
Oh dude man, this ain't good. I was reading the other posts on CTD's and metrics and stuff, kinda thinking well sure but SH3 had some bugs and with patches and mods it turned out rather nicely.

But Britisher aircraft in botched US markings in the Pacific is pretty far out there. Somebody say it ain't so. The previous posts called to mind the picture of a young graphics developer kid with a skateboard parked beside his desk trying to figure out what all those funny markings were on the Allied Alliance of the Willing aircraft as they assulted Tojo's dastardly forces of Mordor and Isengard to liberate the Australians and New Zealanders hold up with MacArthur at Dol Guldur.
http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/03/orc.jpg
But noooooo, turns out maybe that ain't so. If SH3 DB files have been ported over and used as the foundation of SH4 in some manner to include graphics files as was reported above by ThornNRazor, then the theory that they are ofcourse (doh), NOT COMPATIBLE making them counterfeit in effect for the Pacific or in some way, they some how, for some reason, don't ofcourse work well in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

That being said, the worrisome part is whether or not the as yet to be explored little world of SH4 sallies forth with any credibility at all for emersion into the Pacific Theater.

(No, that is not the new management name for the old Keith Albee Theater where all the old timers watched James Bond movies as youngins, that was a particular area of military conflict between Imperial Japan and the Allies during the 1940's). There must be someone in here older than me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Kaleun1961
03-21-2007, 07:18 PM
How old is "old?"

TheRealPotoroo
03-21-2007, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Yes, we all know what happened during WW2, but the peril here is that we have members from various countries here, some of whom are from former enemy states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do we?

The Australian War Memorial in Canberra is Australia's second most visted tourist attraction. Underneath the memorial proper is a museum. Some years ago I was living in Canberra and a mate of mine worked there as an historian. From time to to time he'd go around with tour groups o see what they thought of the displays. He told me he was fascinated by the response of many Japanese visitors to things like the recreation of the POW facilities and the photos of Allied POWs who survived Japanese POW camps, etc. He said they knew absolutely nothing about what happened, and tended to be both disgusted and angry at their own government for not telling them the truth.

It's something to think about.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would not contribute to the harmony of the forum to drag up war atrocities and apportion blame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Neither would it contribute to the harmony of any forum to deny the truth. Some of the victims of those atrocities are still alive. The Japanese policy of deliberately starving POWs is a fact. We owe it to them to speak out. A "harmony" based on lies or censorship is a false harmony.

VikingGrandad
03-21-2007, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheRealPotoroo:
Neither would it contribute to the harmony of any forum to deny the truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of whether a member is 'accepting' or 'denying' - the subject is neither appropriate nor permissable in these forums.

TheRealPotoroo
03-21-2007, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VikingGrandad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheRealPotoroo:
Neither would it contribute to the harmony of any forum to deny the truth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regardless of whether a member is 'accepting' or 'denying' - the subject is neither appropriate nor permissable in these forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where is that written? As a user I'd like to be able to see for myself what is and isn't permissable.

VikingGrandad
03-22-2007, 04:50 AM
As I'm sure you can appreciate, Ubisoft's Terms of Use don't specifically forbid "the discussion of war atrocities" but, if you check the Rules of Conduct, you can see from the first few points why that particular subject is not suitable.

joeap
03-22-2007, 05:58 AM
So...back OT, will anything be done about it?

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 06:21 AM
This issue has come up dozens of times since I started visiting these forums, and it is ALWAYS a contentious issue.

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the passage of time means we can no longer punish those responsible for the misdeeds, or give comfort to those who were victimized; .....so the discussion is always an academic one.

The proponents of these discussions always make the point that these things must be remembered, if they are to be prevented in the future: ......And any thinking person will acknowledge this to be true.

There is, however, a problem: ......Our World today is seemingly dominated by an alternative point of view: .....One that uses "Remembrance" not as a tool for prevention, but as justification for more hatred and violence. It is vitally important not to "fuel" this scenario.

Our business here is to create and maintain an international game forum where players from all nations can feel like "Comrades-In-Arms", and freely discuss their common game interests in a "community" atmosphere.

THIS is why UBI insists that serious political commentary be "checked at the door", ......along with your "six-shooters"!

Realjambo
03-22-2007, 06:30 AM
Seconded.

TheRealPotoroo
03-22-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the passage of time means we can no longer punish those responsible for the misdeeds, or give comfort to those who were victimized; .....so the discussion is always an academic one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are still Australian survivers of Japanese atrocities during WWII alive and as well as can be expected. Their experiences are not the least "academic", anymore than are the experiences of Holocaust survivors.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">THIS is why UBI insists that serious political commentary be "checked at the door", </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not talking about "serious political commentary". I'm talking about the idea that certain facts are not allowed to be mentioned because they might upset some people. I doubt you'd give a Holocaust denier the time of day in here. Why should a denier of other atrocities be allowed to dominate when the truth is so important?

ThornNRazor
03-22-2007, 06:57 AM
I thought we were talking about "Lancasters over the Pacific" in here. Where did all this political nonsense come from?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

TheRealPotoroo
03-22-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VikingGrandad:
As I'm sure you can appreciate, Ubisoft's Terms of Use don't specifically forbid "the discussion of war atrocities" but, if you check the Rules of Conduct, you can see from the first few points why that particular subject is not suitable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I can't. In all sincerity I simply cannot see that implied anywhere.

While the Rules of Conduct basically amount to "be nice", the ToS also says "The Member or user acknowledges that by using the communication features provided on the Site, you may be exposed to Communications and other content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable."

IOW, the ToS gives no protection to hurt feelings if someone happens to not like a particular fact.

FTWalker
03-22-2007, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodan54:
Lets try not to be so hasty in our assumptions of why it's in SH4. I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it may be, but I doubt it's in any way due to a lack of WWII knowledge on the part of the developers.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8156/ussearchplanebc0gg3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great thing is, something like this - along with all the other wrong/missing craft - is a lot easier to patch in than changing the game code itself. I'll still have fun regardless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 07:07 AM
@TRP

OK, .....First things first: If you actually read my post, you will see that I used the phrase "in the vast majority of cases". I think that wording reflects my understanding that there are some survivors, but that now, 60 years later, they are a small percentage of those actually involved.

Secondly, the basic point remains: whether someone is denying the Holocaust, or the existence of Richard Nixon is entirely beside the point: ....Such discussions are outside the scope of this forum.

There are plenty of other on-line organizations dedicated to the various issues you brought up: ......That is where such discussions should be aired.

*

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 07:13 AM
Regarding the Lancaster:

Personally, I think it's a Japanese ruse to allow a heavy bomber to get close enough for a sure kill! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I'm going to have my "Socko trained" AA guys shoot it down! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

*

TheRealPotoroo
03-22-2007, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
@TRP

OK, .....First things first: If you actually read my post, you will see that I used the phrase "in the vast majority of cases". I think that wording reflects my understanding that there are some survivors, but that now, 60 years later, they are a small percentage of those actually involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They're alive and their feelings matter more than any denier's.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, the basic point remains: whether someone is denying the Holocaust, or the existence of Richard Nixon is entirely beside the point: ....Such discussions are outside the scope of this forum.

There are plenty of other on-line organizations dedicated to the various issues you brought up: ......That is where such discussions should be aired. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I repeat: I'm not talking about "discussion". I'm talking about censoring facts.

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I repeat: I'm not talking about "discussion". I'm talking about censoring facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@TRP

There is an aspect of on-line forums that you really have to come to terms with: .....You must go along with what the owner of the forum wants!

If UBI decides that bananas are evil, and that all discussion of bananas is banned; ......then that's the way it is. It's their forum.

End of Story.

*

ThornNRazor
03-22-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I repeat: I'm not talking about "discussion". I'm talking about censoring facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@TRP

There is an aspect of on-line forums that you really have to come to terms with: .....You must go along with what the owner of the forum wants!

If UBI decides that bananas are evil, and that all discussion of bananas is banned; ......then that's the way it is. It's their forum.

End of Story.

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ba Nana Nana Foe Fana, Fee Fi Foe Fana - ANNA!

Sorry! Just had to get it out! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TheRealPotoroo
03-22-2007, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I repeat: I'm not talking about "discussion". I'm talking about censoring facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@TRP

There is an aspect of on-line forums that you really have to come to terms with: .....You must go along with what the owner of the forum wants!

If UBI decides that bananas are evil, and that all discussion of bananas is banned; ......then that's the way it is. It's their forum.

End of Story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I repeat: I'm not talking about "discussion". I'm talking about censoring facts.

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 07:38 AM
@ThornNRazor;

THANKS! ..........for the second time in as many days, a funny post has caught me "mid-gulp", resulting in a beverage being sprayed around the room. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

......Great, just Great!, ....now I have to wipe down the monitor and everything....................

*

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 07:40 AM
@TRP

Be good, .....or I'll let RJ have you!

*

ThornNRazor
03-22-2007, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
@ThornNRazor;

THANKS! ..........for the second time in as many days, a funny post has caught me "mid-gulp", resulting in a beverage being sprayed around the room. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

......Great, just Great!, ....now I have to wipe down the monitor and everything....................

* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Ah well, that's what janitors are for - "Clean up on Isle 3, we have a clean up on Isle 3!"

TheRealPotoroo
03-22-2007, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
@TRP

Be good, .....or I'll let RJ have you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read the ToS three or four times today and to the best of my knowledge it says nothing about politely but firmly arguing one's point being objectionable or actionable.

ThornNRazor
03-22-2007, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheRealPotoroo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klcarroll:
@TRP

Be good, .....or I'll let RJ have you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read the ToS three or four times today and to the best of my knowledge it says nothing about politely but firmly arguing one's point being objectionable or actionable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would just let it go. The mods have spoken and I would just tread lightly away. Tis all you can really do in these situations.

Let's get back to being OT though and start letting old dirt lie. There's no reason to blow it all around again.

Tater-SW-
03-22-2007, 08:20 AM
Well, suffice it to say that in game, don't allow yourself to be captured since there is less than a 60% chance you'll survive as a POW assuming the game models such things correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Go down swinging.

tater

vertex42
03-22-2007, 10:17 AM
okay i dont know if it was posted yet or its just me...

but besides the lancaster i found in the training mission to sink the cruiser the japanese are flying a pby catalina...or what looks exactly like one...so the lanc isnt the only bad skin.

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 10:32 AM
@vertex42;

The Japanese had several large flying boats in their inventory.

I just "bumped" the thread "AN OVERVIEW OF JAPANESE AIRCRAFT" up to page one. Take a look at the "EMILY" and the "MAVIS"; ....and let us know if what you saw looked like one of them.

*

vertex42
03-22-2007, 10:52 AM
wow stand corrected thanks bud..its a mavis...but wow those two look extremely close...

klcarroll
03-22-2007, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...but wow those two look extremely close... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, .....your AA gunners have to be careful, particularly in twilight conditions.

On the other hand, It's probably better to "tickle" a Catalina, than to let a Mavis get overhead with the bomb load she carried!

*

Tarnish_UK
03-23-2007, 05:09 AM
What it comes down to in SH4 is that the aircraft have only been paid lip service to especially on the Allied side. For US Navy aviation I would have expected at least to see:-

Fighter (early war) - Grumman F4F Wildcat
Fighter (late war) - Grumman F6F Hellcat
Dive bomber (early war) - Douglas Dauntless
Dive Bomber (late war) - Curtis Helldiver
Torpedo bomber (early war) - Douglas Devastator
Torpedo bomber (late war) - Grumman Avenger
Maritime patrol - Consolidated PBY "Catalina"

Instead across ALL Allied forces, time periods and wearing US markings regardless we see the Brewster F2A "Buffalo" as the fighter which had been relegated to training in the US Navy by the time hostilities got into full swing. We see the Helldiver in place as the torpedo and dive bomber despite the fact in didn't enter service until 1943. The major one of course and the start of this thread is what on earth is that Lancaster doing in the game?!

Here's hoping that the aircraft are given a major overhaul in respect to types and colour schemes/markings over the coming patches.

TheRealPotoroo
03-23-2007, 05:27 AM
You'd think they could at least have picked an American bomber to be the "American bomber"!

klcarroll
03-23-2007, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You'd think they could at least have picked an American bomber to be the "American bomber"! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Yeah....., it's not as though they don't know what a B-24 or B-17 looks like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The only thing I can think is that all of their B-24s are tied up bombing my TypeIID off the coast of Ireland. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

*

Tarnish_UK
03-23-2007, 07:09 AM
I'm more upset at seeing our beloved Avro Lancaster in American markings! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It is daft, I mean how difficult is it with a little research to get it basically right? not much, in fifteen minutes with the internet they could have found the basics of whatever they needed to know. Failing that here's a "radical" idea for you... how about asking us WW2 nuts here on the net for some advice!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheRealPotoroo
03-23-2007, 07:12 AM
I think Bernard was their historical advisor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif